User talk:David in DC: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:33, 3 October 2013 editEEng (talk \| contribs)Edit filter helpers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors97,992 edits →PTSD (Post-Dramatic Sockpuppet Disorder): mentioned you in passing← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:23, 6 October 2013 edit undoDavid in DC (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,601 edits →telepathy: ce my replyNext edit →
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 113:		Line 113:

	I also don't understand the wikilinks to ] and ]. Sheldrake actually argues against the former, saying that genes are not the carrier of memory. And the connection to Gardner Murphy, the latter, eludes me. Sheldrake does talk about collective unconscious, but apparently one of a different flavor. Also, the new material in "Academic career" starts with a quote from an interview in 2000, then indents with a quote from his 1981 book (now reproduced on his website), then unindents back to the 2000 interview. I appreciate the work you've done, and I don't want to sound too critical, but I'm perplexed by these recent edits. ] (]) 06:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)		I also don't understand the wikilinks to ] and ]. Sheldrake actually argues against the former, saying that genes are not the carrier of memory. And the connection to Gardner Murphy, the latter, eludes me. Sheldrake does talk about collective unconscious, but apparently one of a different flavor. Also, the new material in "Academic career" starts with a quote from an interview in 2000, then indents with a quote from his 1981 book (now reproduced on his website), then unindents back to the 2000 interview. I appreciate the work you've done, and I don't want to sound too critical, but I'm perplexed by these recent edits. ] (]) 06:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

			: Until August 2013 the lead did not even describe morphic resonance. Adding the two direct quotes from was easy and seemed to suffice; the quotes ultimately come from ''Presence of the Past'' and ''A New Science of Life''. It's very hard to go wrong with the author's own words which are attributed to him ("according to Sheldrake..."). On the other hand, "paranormal interconnectedness" directly mischaracterizes his view in the first paragraph, as Sheldrake is adamant that telepathy is ''not'' paranormal. ] (]) 20:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

			::I agree and have edited accordingly. It also solves a prose problem that had been bothering me. "Interconnectedness" is scarcely a word at all. In my ear it seems akin to calling human interaction "interfacing" or the act of writing a book "authorizing." If we're to use a variant of "interconnectedness," I'm much happier to have it in Shaldrake's voice than in Misplaced Pages's. ] (]) 21:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

			:::I still don't get it. It was just "mysterious" that bothered you? It's the same as the original now, but without "mysterious". "Cherry-picking the most derogatory words, putting them in the lede" is inexplicably harsh treatment for the process I described above. I still don't understand the issue starting from the beginning of this thread. ] (]) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

			::::I'm definitely doing a lousy job of explaining myself. Your first two comments in this thread (9/26) were a response to a bad edit I made late at night on the 25th. I woke up the next morning, read your posts, and re-edited with a specific edit summary refering to "after a good night's sleep and some good talk page advice" - or language very close to that anyway.

			::::This time, my edit was a response to your most recent posting to my page. (10/5) You immediately improved on my response, with a good edit summary. That's why I was sending you a "thank" at the same time you were sending me a new frustrated plea for explanation.

			::::"Mysterious" was not my big concern. My concern was that the whole quote, as first configured, didn't reveal to the casual reader (ie one who doesn't read footnotes carefully) that the words were not the harsh criticism of an antagonist, but rather the author's own self-effacing explanation.

			::::If someone calls me a blind squirel who occasionally finds a nut, that's a harsh insult. If I say the same exact words about myself, it's an acknowledgement of fallibility. That was my objection, not the words themselves, but the relative opacity of their source. I tried to solve that problem - and think I succeeded - with the block-quote further down, but was still left with "paranormal interconnectedness", which I purposely left for another day.

			::::As for "paranormal interconnectedness", my biggest trouble with it was the word "interconnectedness", which sounded like dreadful prose to me. A stylistic problem. Yours was with "paranormal", a much bigger problem, about which I was blithely oblivious.

			::::With any luck, I've made myself clearer. Given Murphy's Law, probably not. I'm hoping Murphy's on furlough today. ] (]) 22:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

			:::::OK I get the concern about the possibility of Sheldrake being self-effacing. He could be describing how his colleagues viewed his ideas in order to convey why they did not accept them. However the context is "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species", and the "collective memories within species" part is dead serious -- that's how he describes it for real. Searching through indicates the quote is OK (although the details have changed over the years (used to be resonance, then fields as channels (which may be the same as resonance, I don't know))).

			::::: I don't understand the attribution issue because the original said "according to Sheldrake", and the footnotes show Sheldrake's name as well. ] (]) 23:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
			::::::I understand your confusion. ESpecially after re-reading my diff. All I can say is that the fact that the second quote had a different citation made me think "According to Sheldrake" applied only to what came before <s>it</s> the first ref and that despite the second footnote clearly showing that the rest of the sentence is also "according to Sheldrake", I didn't get it. It was not a failure of attribution, it was my failure of careful reading. ] (]) 12:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

	==In case you like computer porn==		==In case you like computer porn==

Revision as of 12:23, 6 October 2013

EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN
Caution: This is a very powerful tool.
Handle With Utmost Care

Welcome!

Hello, David in DC, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Misplaced Pages is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over 4 million articles in a host of languages. The English Language Misplaced Pages alone has over 1 million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. If you need help look at Misplaced Pages:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Misplaced Pages related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. --MPerel 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks David in DC 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive One: 6 February 2007 - 14 July 2008
Archive Two: 22 July 2008 - 2 December 2008
Archive Three: 5 January 2009 - 10 December 2009
Archive Four 24 February 2010 - 8 August 2013

Remarkably extraordinary

Re : watch out you don't get arrested by the GA/MOS police EEng (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

John Hagelin

...delighted to have your input, worry not.(olive (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Thanks, olive. I was reacting to "Like it or not." David in DC (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for the work you continue to do on the Hagelin article; Whatever your personal position, I can see you are neutral and fair. Nice copy editing too.(olive (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

Sophie Anderton

Why the sudden interest in this page considering that you have never even edited on this page before? Are you being paid to edit her page directly? please disclose this information. If this is the case you will be in breach of WP:NPOV,WP:ADVOCACY. I will be watching all new edits from your user name very closely. Many Thanks for your time and help on this matter.

Johnsy88 (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I try to keep the list of pages with pending edits as short as possible. You'll see in the history that my first edit or two to the page came after reviewing a pending change. If you look through my edit history, you'll see that I primarily edit BLP's. So when I get to a BLP by way of a pending change review, I often take an interest. I'm not being paid to edit her page, nor any other page. I've never been paid to edit wikipedia. I DID get a couple of cool t-shirts at a couple of wiki-gatherings. One was at a gathering of wiki-editors at an event at the National Archives. The other was a commemoration of wikipedia's 10th birthday. Please review my edit history. There's plenrty there. I've been editing for years. I hope you'll see that there's nothing there to suggest I'm anything but a long-time, dedicated volunteer.

Also, thank you for your kind offer to review my edits. I make far to many typos and other various and sundry errors. A personal proofreader would be a really good thing to have. David in DC (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. Not a problem at all. I will be watching with interest Johnsy88 (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your diligent application of WP principles and guidelines at John Hagelin and throughout WP. Your continued contributions to the WP project are greatly appreciated by all. Cheers! — *Keithbob* • Talk • 16:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Nice work at Sophie Anderton — Keithbob • Talk • 01:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Silly stan - blogs are for kids!

Why are you silly stans so determined to make K.Michelle younger than she is? Do you not understand that she was Miss FAMU in 2003 and the Freshman Attendant in 2000? That her own college yearbook identifies her as 18 in the year 2000? You're talking abouta newspaper is needed as proof. That's been provided as a source as well, but you say it's not good enough! We could pull it out of the Tallahasse Democrat and you'd STILL say it's not good enough. Yet the word of a blog is? I'm pretty sure the archives of the University of Florida beat some urban blog. Nothing you do will make her younger than 31, and I will change that date every time you try to - with REAL proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.197.126.208 (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Re: video

Hi, thanks for fixing up the article; it looks more canonical now. Re the video, it looked like you didn't notice that the video was already sourced: the second ref for the TEDx paragraph. Whether to put it as an external link is an interesting question. It fails "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" but passes "except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting". WP:ELNO Vzaak (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak: I don't think it belongs in the External Links section. The video doesn't need to be there, even if the narrow exception fits. The video's in the 3/19 Ted blog post ref. My thought is that the 3/14 pTed blog post is a legitimate in-line source for this sentence: "The video of the talk was moved from the TEDx YouTube channel to the TED blog accompanied by this framing." I inserted my ref at the end of the graf, rather than after the penultimate sentence, for layout reasons only, to make the graf less cluttered. But you're right, it does look redundent there, as if it's a duplicative source for the video.

My edit summary for deleting the youtube ELNO was clear. My edit summary for adding the 2nd TED post? Not so much.

Thanks again. I've run across too much incivility lately. This bit of back and forth is a welcome tonic. David in DC (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the Independent article covers the YouTube -> Blog transfer. It's not a good article, but it's the only secondary source that exists. Vzaak (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll look for a better secondary source for that fact, rather than trying to shoehorn a second TED blog post in that's liable to be mistaken for redundency. But for now, after tackling some especially horrible prose in another article on a fringe topic (happily, not a BLP) I'm exhausted and headed for bed. I'll close out with my very favorite Teamster salutation: Keep the shiny side up and the rubber side down. David in DC (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that's the only reliable secondary source that has ever been written, I think. I summarised the problem here. Vzaak (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Just sayin'. Vzaak (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. I'll stop feeding the ducks. David in DC (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Re facepalm, the situation continues to not seem "for real" to me. The user page itself looks like a parody -- "a wonderful opportunity to show the value of pure unbiased, neutral..." -- especially in light of his support for Sheldrake outside of WP. Independent of whether this is "trolling 2.0" or not, he openly says on his page that he is here to conduct social experiments. Using editors as guinea pigs has to break a policy somewhere. It's too weird for me to comprehend, I'm afraid. vzaak (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Civil Services of India may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

India services. The ] (IFS), ] (IAS) and (IPS) are the three services set up under this constitutional provision.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

telepathy

Hi, without the "telepathy-type interconnections" quote there's no explanation why his work would involve telepathy and parapsychology. The reader should know their relationship to morphic resonance in order to bring context to the next paragraph about morphic resonance. vzaak (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out the reason for removing the quote that connects morphic resonance to telepathy and parapsychology. With the subsequent changes the connection is still erased. vzaak (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I also don't understand the wikilinks to parapsychological genetic memory and paranormal collective consciousness. Sheldrake actually argues against the former, saying that genes are not the carrier of memory. And the connection to Gardner Murphy, the latter, eludes me. Sheldrake does talk about collective unconscious, but apparently one of a different flavor. Also, the new material in "Academic career" starts with a quote from an interview in 2000, then indents with a quote from his 1981 book (now reproduced on his website), then unindents back to the 2000 interview. I appreciate the work you've done, and I don't want to sound too critical, but I'm perplexed by these recent edits. vzaak (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Until August 2013 the lead did not even describe morphic resonance. Adding the two direct quotes from here was easy and seemed to suffice; the quotes ultimately come from Presence of the Past and A New Science of Life. It's very hard to go wrong with the author's own words which are attributed to him ("according to Sheldrake..."). On the other hand, "paranormal interconnectedness" directly mischaracterizes his view in the first paragraph, as Sheldrake is adamant that telepathy is not paranormal. vzaak (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have edited accordingly. It also solves a prose problem that had been bothering me. "Interconnectedness" is scarcely a word at all. In my ear it seems akin to calling human interaction "interfacing" or the act of writing a book "authorizing." If we're to use a variant of "interconnectedness," I'm much happier to have it in Shaldrake's voice than in Misplaced Pages's. David in DC (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it. It was just "mysterious" that bothered you? It's the same as the original now, but without "mysterious". "Cherry-picking the most derogatory words, putting them in the lede" is inexplicably harsh treatment for the process I described above. I still don't understand the issue starting from the beginning of this thread. vzaak (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm definitely doing a lousy job of explaining myself. Your first two comments in this thread (9/26) were a response to a bad edit I made late at night on the 25th. I woke up the next morning, read your posts, and re-edited with a specific edit summary refering to "after a good night's sleep and some good talk page advice" - or language very close to that anyway.

This time, my edit was a response to your most recent posting to my page. (10/5) You immediately improved on my response, with a good edit summary. That's why I was sending you a "thank" at the same time you were sending me a new frustrated plea for explanation.

"Mysterious" was not my big concern. My concern was that the whole quote, as first configured, didn't reveal to the casual reader (ie one who doesn't read footnotes carefully) that the words were not the harsh criticism of an antagonist, but rather the author's own self-effacing explanation.

If someone calls me a blind squirel who occasionally finds a nut, that's a harsh insult. If I say the same exact words about myself, it's an acknowledgement of fallibility. That was my objection, not the words themselves, but the relative opacity of their source. I tried to solve that problem - and think I succeeded - with the block-quote further down, but was still left with "paranormal interconnectedness", which I purposely left for another day.

As for "paranormal interconnectedness", my biggest trouble with it was the word "interconnectedness", which sounded like dreadful prose to me. A stylistic problem. Yours was with "paranormal", a much bigger problem, about which I was blithely oblivious.

With any luck, I've made myself clearer. Given Murphy's Law, probably not. I'm hoping Murphy's on furlough today. David in DC (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

OK I get the concern about the possibility of Sheldrake being self-effacing. He could be describing how his colleagues viewed his ideas in order to convey why they did not accept them. However the context is "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species", and the "collective memories within species" part is dead serious -- that's how he describes it for real. Searching through Dogs That Know indicates the quote is OK (although the details have changed over the years (used to be resonance, then fields as channels (which may be the same as resonance, I don't know))).

I don't understand the attribution issue because the original said "according to Sheldrake", and the footnotes show Sheldrake's name as well. vzaak (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand your confusion. ESpecially after re-reading my diff. All I can say is that the fact that the second quote had a different citation made me think "According to Sheldrake" applied only to what came before it the first ref and that despite the second footnote clearly showing that the rest of the sentence is also "according to Sheldrake", I didn't get it. It was not a failure of attribution, it was my failure of careful reading. David in DC (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In case you like computer porn

User_talk:Citation_bot#September_2013 EEng (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gary Null, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Reality check, please.

Is this as thoroughly outrageous as I think. Because, as you can see, I'm appalled. David in DC (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Brunei

Hi there, I'm just wondering if "Recognized" is suitable to describe English on the Info-box in regards to the reference used on footnote(b) which has got to do with section (2) of Article 82 on the Consitution http://www.agc.gov.bn/agc1/images/LOB/cons_doc/dokumen-dokumen_perlembagaan_2008.pdf Alevero987 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. It seems uncontroversial to me, but I should hasten to add that I know very little about what's controversial about Brunei and what's not. The use of the language of the former colonial power is sometimes a very controversial topic in former colonies. ~~I see two possible approaches:~~
~~A) Post the edit, per WP:BOLD, and then don't get upset if someone reverts it and then initiates a civil conversation under WP:BRD to try to reach consensus.~~

~~B) Ask the same question you've asked me on the talk page first, and be guided by any replies.~~

I've stricken my advice. After reviewing the page history, it looks like you're alread at the "D" step in WP:BRD. Don't re-insert the edit without achieving consensus on the talk page. Definitely don't edit-war. If consensus proves impossible, there are multiple avenues for dispute resolution on wikipedia. Here's a guide: Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution

I'm honored, and a little bit humbled, that you've asked my advice. Thanks for the morning pick-me-up.

Good luck and happy editing. David in DC (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

PTSD (Post-Dramatic Sockpuppet Disorder)

Wow! How those traumatic memories linger! Just seeing a username beginning with "Ry" gave me heart palpitations. EEng (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC) P.S Since I mentioned you: